  | 
  | 
 
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
Hi,
I'm woundering - is it phisicaly ok that light (interior - fade_power) 
fades to black ? imho light should fade to some color.
But using fade_color same as pigment color results in no fading at all.
I.e. think about human's skin.
I.e. we have 3 small splinter's inside humans finger (drastic example ;)
All are white.
The object that is at 'depth' of 0.1 mm will have normal white color.
This at depth 2 mm will have ie 50% it's color, and 50% of skinns color, so 
it will be bright-"orange".
And this at dethp over 5 mm will be in fact invisible from outside.
How can I simulate this in POV ? Maybe little example (box=finger, 
sphere=splinter)
-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M
 Post a reply to this message 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256 com> wrote in
news:Xns### [at] 204 213 191 226 
[...]
sorry, forgot to add this - I don't want to use media - it's slow and not 
accurate. 
Imho scattering media with constant density will give proper effect, but - 
how about add way to calculate this very tryvial effect without using 
standart media - that is slow and innacurate ?
-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M
 
 Post a reply to this message 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm woundering - is it phisicaly ok that light (interior - fade_power)
> fades to black ? imho light should fade to some color.
> But using fade_color same as pigment color results in no fading at all.
>
You need to give fade_color very low values to still get visible fading
for example rgb<0.1,0.2,0>. This is because rgb 0 is the default and rgb 1
doesn't give any fading so to get almost the same fading as with the default
only colored you have to use such low values.
Simon
 
 Post a reply to this message 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
In article <Xns### [at] 204 213 191 226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256 com> wrote:
> I'm woundering - is it phisicaly ok that light (interior - fade_power) 
> fades to black ? imho light should fade to some color.
No, it should fade to black. As distance increases, it allows less and 
less light to pass through.
> But using fade_color same as pigment color results in no fading at all.
You are probably using too high of a color value or simply can't see the 
fading because of the pigment color. Make the pigment color "rgbf 1".
> I.e. think about human's skin.
> I.e. we have 3 small splinter's inside humans finger (drastic example ;)
> All are white.
> 
> The object that is at 'depth' of 0.1 mm will have normal white color.
> This at depth 2 mm will have ie 50% it's color, and 50% of skinns color, so 
> it will be bright-"orange".
> And this at dethp over 5 mm will be in fact invisible from outside.
Skin is a different case, it scatters quite a bit of light. Interior 
attenuation can not simulate this, you need scattering media.
-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] mac com>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tag povray org
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
 
 Post a reply to this message 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
In article <Xns### [at] 204 213 191 226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256 com> wrote:
> sorry, forgot to add this - I don't want to use media - it's slow and not 
> accurate. 
Actually, media is more accurate in most cases. And it usually isn't too 
slow to use.
> Imho scattering media with constant density will give proper effect, but - 
> how about add way to calculate this very tryvial effect without using 
> standart media - that is slow and innacurate ?
Absorbing media is the analog of attenuation, not scattering. And media 
is accurate, that's why it is slow.
-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] mac com>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tag povray org
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
 
 Post a reply to this message 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 |   |  
 | 
  | 
 | 
  | 
 
 |   |  
 
 | 
  |